Just a reminder that the use of "rape" to describe forced impregnation of dairy cows is considered really inappropriate for a lot of survivors of sexualized violence, vegan and non-vegan.

Is it? Why? Because we have a social construct around it as well? I mean, I wouldn't think my rape experience is the exact "same" thing for other animals, but I don't see why it shouldn't be called rape. In a theoretical discussion of it, mostly though.

i guess the question to ask is if you (a human) were put in the position of the cows, and a person with an implement invaded your body and inserted (human) sperm inside you against your will, would you call it rape? (i would. the definition of rape doesn't restrict it to a penis, does it?)

There are different legal definitions of rape. In my definition, it definitely counts. The other one is very arbitrary to me.

Quote:

Why should the word "rape" only speak about a human experience? I think the fact that you'd like to exclude the experience of non-human animals is telling about how even vegans view them as lesser than humans.

I think, though, that if you try to get everyone to stop being a speciesist before they go vegan, there'd be even less success.

_________________

lepelaar wrote:

The PPK is a mere cooking seminar for flexitarians who believe in the good of man, but might be a good resource for 3d video expertise and ready-made inhumane slaughterhouse timelines.

I think the big problem is that women and PoC have long been associated with animals in order to justify their oppression. It still goes on today, I was at a museum last week and there's a room where you learn about the white people who colonized this place in their own special room where you look for your family name on the wall and see comparisons between you and your ancestor and all that jazz, and all the aboriginal artifacts are in the same room with all the taxidermy animals and moss samples.

I think its probably called a "rape rack" because there's very little respect for rape survivors in the first place and meant as a rape joke. Its hard to get people who think that's funny to care about human rape survivors, let alone animals being artificially inseminated.

_________________I was really surprised the first time I saw a penis. After those banana tutorials, I was expecting something so different. -Tofulish

I think its probably called a "rape rack" because there's very little respect for rape survivors in the first place and meant as a rape joke. Its hard to get people who think that's funny to care about human rape survivors, let alone animals being artificially inseminated.

Agreed, but it could be an opening for discussion with social justice activists. There are people who don't care about non-human animals who would not want to financially support people who are so flippant about rape.

it's your forum. it felt like you didn't want me to continue my thoughts. i was just respecting that.

IsaChandra wrote:

I don't want to tread into the absurd and start discussing hypothetical methods for this hypothetical insemination and the victim's hypothetical state at that time. And I'm not sure why they have to be innocent human orphaned teens, instead of just humans - innocent, orphans or not. But I'll repeat myself: I don't think that rape is limited to human experience. At the same time, I also don't think that all actions have to be equal for humans and other animals, as has been suggested in this thread.

Not everything has to be equal for us to understand that animals have just the same right to life and freedom that we do. There are so many things that we wouldn't do to a human being, that we, even as vegans, do to animals. For instance, if you get your cat fixed, that is considered being a responsible pet guardian. Would you do that to another person? How about one of your orphaned innocent teens?

And to use a much lighter scenario, if I fed my dinner guests from a bowl on the floor, that might be considered odd. But of course when I feed my cats that way it's totally fine. Hope you see what I'm getting at.

i did say "(or other powerless women)"

also, i said orphans because the calves are taken from their mothers.and innocent because i'm sure there are a lot of people out there that are more okay with testing/experimenting/harvesting criminals than innocents.

pets can't speak to us in words. they need humans, and there aren't enough [willing] humans to take care of them, getting them sterilized is the responsible thing to do. (there's a recent radiolab on a woman that adopted half of a drug addict's 8 babies, and came up with a solution to offer these women who keep getting pregnant without means to take care of the babies $200 if they would agree to take birth control/get sterilized. i think that is a perfect solution. it's not against the womens' desires, but one person had to suggest it to another person. it's a similar situation, and i support it.)

humans are bipedal. it makes no sense to offer them food out of a bowl on the floor. (unless of course you're going on a picnic, and offering them utensils as well.) cats also don't have opposable thumbs. their eating situation is perfect for their anatomy. it's equally as absurd to tell a cat to sit on a chair and make it use a spoon.

also, i said orphans because the calves are taken from their mothers.and innocent because i'm sure there are a lot of people out there that are more okay with testing/experimenting/harvesting criminals than innocents.

Sorry if it seems like I'm jumping into this conversation willy-nilly - I did post in this thread previously but it got lost in the spam kerfuffle.

supercarrot wrote:

and innocent because i'm sure there are a lot of people out there that are more okay with testing/experimenting/harvesting criminals than innocents.

Why did you choose innocent people in particular to make your analogy, though? Are cows inherently innocent? (I personally don't think "innocence"/"guilt" really apply to non humans so this seemed odd to me.)

supercarrot wrote:

pets can't speak to us in words. they need humans, and there aren't enough [willing] humans to take care of them, getting them sterilized is the responsible thing to do. (there's a recent radiolab on a woman that adopted half of a drug addict's 8 babies, and came up with a solution to offer these women who keep getting pregnant without means to take care of the babies $200 if they would agree to take birth control/get sterilized. i think that is a perfect solution. it's not against the womens' desires, but one person had to suggest it to another person. it's a similar situation, and i support it.)

You're talking about Barbara Harris of Project Prevention, right? That point of view is actually pretty controversial. Lots of people find offering financial incentives for sterilization to be coercive. Funny that you mention her though - I'm reminded of a quote I read in an article awhile ago (here).

Barbara Harris on Alternet wrote:

“We don’t allow dogs to breed," she said. "We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children.” Given the chance to distance herself from this comment on a segment on 60 Minutes II, she doubled down, saying, “It’s the truth—they don’t just have one and two babies, they have litters.”

_________________"I feel like it's not a real political discussion if I'm not morally opposed to something I don't understand." - ndpittman

and innocent because i'm sure there are a lot of people out there that are more okay with testing/experimenting/harvesting criminals than innocents.

Why did you choose innocent people in particular to make your analogy, though? Are cows inherently innocent? (I personally don't think "innocence"/"guilt" really apply to non humans so this seemed odd to me.)

well, people put dogs down if they attack. i don't know if cows trample people or gore them like bulls do... but they take calves. babies are inherently innocent.

guhh. i'm a terrible debater. i'm sorry if i rubbed anyone the wrong way. (i'm like spock. i'm more in my head than in my heart.)

p.s. women have a hard time getting back on their feet if they're pregnant all the time. :-/ the "litters" comment was a bit over the top, but i still think it's a good thing. what if the women who accepted the deal wanted to get sterilized in the first place, but didn't have the finances to do so? this way, they get the procedure and an extra $200.

p.p.s. i'm not saying i agree with euthanizing dogs or testing on criminals. just to set the record straight. i'm pointing out that there are people who think that way.

I have to say, I don't find your argument Spock-like at all, I actually find it, er, illogical. Of course I agree that getting companion animals sterilized is the responsible thing to do, but that is ignoring my point. So instead of repeating myself, I'll just bow out.

I disagree that cows are raped and I don't believe it's effective outreach. Both are horrible, and appear similar on the surface, but I think that considering the motivation for the two actions make them very separate things. When ones calls inseminating cows "rape" it takes away from the understanding of both situations, in my opinion. I do actually think that non-humans can be raped, though.

Furthermore, the people that make this analogy are often using it for its shock value, and if you're going to make the analogy, you should have as much care for both travesties. I don't think anyone here is doing that, but it's worth pointing out.

Here's Isa's response for those who missed it in the theoretical raping.

_________________A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-DubDessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. FezzaYou people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!

and innocent because i'm sure there are a lot of people out there that are more okay with testing/experimenting/harvesting criminals than innocents.

Why did you choose innocent people in particular to make your analogy, though? Are cows inherently innocent? (I personally don't think "innocence"/"guilt" really apply to non humans so this seemed odd to me.)

well, people put dogs down if they attack. i don't know if cows trample people or gore them like bulls do... but they take calves. babies are inherently innocent.

guhh. i'm a terrible debater. i'm sorry if i rubbed anyone the wrong way. (i'm like spock. i'm more in my head than in my heart.)

p.s. women have a hard time getting back on their feet if they're pregnant all the time. :-/ the "litters" comment was a bit over the top, but i still think it's a good thing. what if the women who accepted the deal wanted to get sterilized in the first place, but didn't have the finances to do so? this way, they get the procedure and an extra $200.

p.p.s. i'm not saying i agree with euthanizing dogs or testing on criminals. just to set the record straight. i'm pointing out that there are people who think that way.

I would like to point out that rape happens to humans who are not "innocent." It happens to people in jail who have committed terrible crimes. It happens to sex workers. What they are all innocent of is deserving to be sexually violated. But the analogy works better if we only talk about "innocent children." It works even better for shock value.

Bribing economically vulnerable women to not have children is an ethically problematic thing to advocate.

I would also like to point out that no one is talking about effective ways to actually advocate for animals or encourage people to go vegan. Instead we are arguing about whether or not PETA like shock tactics do anything but peas people off. Here's Isa's other comment:

Quote:

I don't want to tread into the absurd and start discussing hypothetical methods for this hypothetical insemination and the victim's hypothetical state at that time. And I'm not sure why they have to be innocent human orphaned teens, instead of just humans - innocent, orphans or not. But I'll repeat myself: I don't think that rape is limited to human experience. At the same time, I also don't think that all actions have to be equal for humans and other animals, as has been suggested in this thread.

Not everything has to be equal for us to understand that animals have just the same right to life and freedom that we do. There are so many things that we wouldn't do to a human being, that we, even as vegans, do to animals. For instance, if you get your cat fixed, that is considered being a responsible pet guardian. Would you do that to another person? How about one of your orphaned innocent teens?

And to use a much lighter scenario, if I fed my dinner guests from a bowl on the floor, that might be considered odd. But of course when I feed my cats that way it's totally fine. Hope you see what I'm getting at.

_________________A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-DubDessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. FezzaYou people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!

My basic opinion on this is that animals and humans are different. And animals and animals are different. A cow has the right to live out its life as a cow, because a cow is what it is. A fish has the right to live out its life as a fish, because a fish is what it is. A human has the right to live out its life as a human, because a human is what it is. All these arguments seem to be saying that the only way we can make animals seem valuable is to claim that they're the same as people. I disagree -- every being is valuable for being what it is. I don't need "cows are just like people" as a preliminary step to "cows are valuable."

I think the big problem is that women and PoC have long been associated with animals in order to justify their oppression. It still goes on today, I was at a museum last week and there's a room where you learn about the white people who colonized this place in their own special room where you look for your family name on the wall and see comparisons between you and your ancestor and all that jazz, and all the aboriginal artifacts are in the same room with all the taxidermy animals and moss samples.

I think its probably called a "rape rack" because there's very little respect for rape survivors in the first place and meant as a rape joke. Its hard to get people who think that's funny to care about human rape survivors, let alone animals being artificially inseminated.

That museum sounds pretty forked up, but sadly not surprising. And your second point is more or less what I was trying to say two pages back in my meandering early morning fog. The process bothers on behalf on animals, but the flippant naming of the device bothers me on behalf of everyone, human or not. What is it like to go home and interact with your family after you've said the word "rape rack" at work all day?

Anyway, I'm a sucky vegan because I don't do any messaging at all beyond sharing food. I generally avoid talking about the whys because I'm fairly passionate and don't feel like getting into it...

Anyway, I'm a sucky vegan because I don't do any messaging at all beyond sharing food. I generally avoid talking about the whys because I'm fairly passionate and don't feel like getting into it...

If you are a sucky vegan so am I. I control no one's life but my own. I understand wanting to get the message out and for those that have that as a passion, I wish they'd do it in a thoughtful, neutral, way that encourages discussion rather than something that can be hurtful to others. Anyway, besides the fact that I only do what I can do, I've had many others around me cut down on their animal products or go vegan/vegetarian. If I encourage someone to cut down on their consumption of animal products, then that is a bonus but I'm concerned mostly about my impact.

_________________You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.